Zulu: Lieutenant John Chard:What's our strength? Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead:Seven officers including surgeon, commissaries and so on; Adendorff now I suppose; wounded and sick 36, fit for duty 97 and about 40 native levies. Not much of an army for you

Fair use notice.
This website may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner.
We are making such material and images are available in our efforts to advance the understanding of the “Anglo Zulu War of 1879. For educational & recreational purposes.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material, as provided for in UK copyright law. The information is purely for educational and research purposes only. No profit is made from any part of this website.
If you hold the copyright on any material on the site, or material refers to you, and you would like it to be removed, please let us know and we will work with you to reach a resolution.

FrankProbably for me too - but that leaves me trying to explain to myself how some survivors could fall out at 10.45 (for their dinners!) and fifteen minutes later fall in again at 12.00.It is just not reconcilable.Now I can say, have a look at published authors and see what knots they tie themselves into trying to do the same.

Last edited by Julian Whybra on Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:06 pm; edited 1 time in total

Your point about the testimonies from the 1/24th Privates being in the same hand and sheets is true. But look at the following comparison of (left) a page of Private Bickley's testimony and (right) a page of Clery's. Same hand again? These "originals" at the National Archives are Bellair's copies not actual originals to my mind (it actually says Copy). So we cannot be sure that the real originals were in the same hand or on the same sheets can we?[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Steve

Thanks all for contributions. Xhosa, the context is this. I’ve always had an uneasiness about the timing of the second Fall in and Column call. Most writers place this at 12 for the reasons Frank has said. I recently came across an unpublished known survivor’s account of the battle (one who wouldn’t have had a watch) and in the process of authentification I had cause to look again at the timing of this second Fall in. As has been said, without watches all timings are (wild, even) estimates. Also, all timings were estimated a few days (or in some cases years) later when interviewed and so time became conflated or expanded in the memory. Even if a man had a watch and noted the time he could have had no regard for its later importance and placement in his memory.At the time events were happening the men had no reason to note the time UNLESS they happened to have set it against another event (e.g. as Durnford arrived, just before dinner, when some horsemen arrived) or UNLESS they recalled that it was a ridiculously short time such that they hadn’t time to have dinner/unsaddle a horse/get to a tent. So, important are potentially watch-owning officers’ contemporary statements and ORs’ contemporary statements where the 2nd Fall in is placed in a chronological context.

The time of the first Fall in is beyond doubt. Whitelaw arrives at camp 7.45, The Fall in was sounded about 8.00, Pulleine’s message to LC is dated at 8.05. There is no disagreement.

The 2nd Fall in as a response to Shepstone’s message/Durnford’s retreat according toCapt. Gardner’s testimony might be placed 12.10-13.00, Lieut. Curling’s about 12Lieut. Davies found the camp already under arms when he with Durnford’s arrived.Pte. Bickley had the 1st Fall in at 8.00, Durnford arriving at 8.30, dismissal 9.30-10.00, 2nd Fall in very shortly after.Pte. Williams had the 1st Fall in at 9.00 and dismissal after an hour and a quarter at 10.15. The 2nd Fall in he placed at 11.00 by which time Durnford’s force has arrived.Pte. Wilson had the 1st Fall in at 8.00 and dismissal 10.30-11.00 when Durnford’s force arrived. Soon after E coy was sent up the spur but the others told to get their dinners asap. A quarter of an hour after dismissal the 2nd Fall in occurred i.e. 10.45-11.15 long before Shepstone/Gardner arrived.Trpr. Barker has Whitelaw delivering his message about 8.00, Swift & another delivering a message to camp about 9.00, and himself a& Hawkins delivering a third message to camp about 11.00 but meeting the RB en route. Barker’s account is written in 1911 and clearly confused.My new account has the 1st Fall in at 8.00, dismissal at 10.30, and the 2nd Fall in very soon after some horsemen arrived and before he could get some dinner at about 11.00.

Brickhill’s (dated May) has one Fall in from breakfast to 12.30 (clearly wrong).

The 2nd Fall in as a response to a white mounted volunteer’s message according toAbraham was followed by mounted Kaffirs’ departure

There were times when I began to wonder seriously if there were not in fact three Fall ins at 8.00, 11.00 and 12.00. There weren’t of course. So the question arose how do you reconcile a clear memory of a very short time-elapse after the dismissal with the 2nd Fall in?i.e.Fixed time 8.00 1st Fall inDismissals ranging from 10.00, 10.15, 10.30, and 11.00A very short time-elapse of a quarter of an hour before the 2nd Fall in, YET Durnford’s force has just arrived AND dinner is about to be served (at 12.00).A 2nd Fall in resulting from Shepstone message and Durnford’s retreat at 12.00.

You see the problems? Blind adherence to a 12.00 2nd Fall in requires dismissing of a lot of evidence and sequences of events in up-until-now seemingly trustworthy survivors' accounts. I'm prepared to go along with that but it concerns me nevertheless and I wanted to know what others felt. And that's the context for my post.

BRICKHILL has Durnford in the camp between 8 & 9.

SMITH-DORRIEN has Durnford in the camp around 8

"I rode off and got into that camp about 8 a.m., just as Colonel Durnford's force arrived. Colonel Durnford was having a discussion with Lieutenant-Colonel Pulleine of the 24th, who had been left by Lord Chelmsford in command of the camp."

Yep Littlehand..there's the rub, the timing's are all to cock!this thread in my opinion can only be conjecture. i am atpresent waiting for Julian to pull his rabbit from the hat..now that i'm sure will be interesting.

SteveThe originals are at Brecon. All in the same hand, half a page each statement.LHIts pretty impossible timing by SD and Brickhill.LesYep, dead right mate, but hell its fun trying, just imagine if you had given up supporting MC and switched to MU? Nope, you keep on going. I must let slip that there have been a number of 'finds' lately that are all adding to the picture. Theres a lot of people scurrying around out there.

Cheers Mate( Got visions of Martin bombing around on a motorised skateboard )

Last edited by Frank Allewell on Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:18 am; edited 1 time in total

LH and LesSorry a bit more time available now to re answer your question on SD and Brickhill.Starting with the obvious, early mornings in the area from iSandlawana to RD are really really dark. Two weeks ago I left RD to drive back to Durban leaving RD at around 3 in the morning. that's approx. the time that SD would have left to ride the opposite way. in a high rise 4 x 4 with full head lights blazing the track was barely visible and speed was around 20 K per hour. Time for the trip to iSandlwana was around 45 minutes. Normally 20 minutes or so.So SD leaving iSandlwana at 3 ish on horseback had to have arrived at the Durnford Camp (That wasn't at RD but on the ridge 2 miles closer to iSandlwana) no earlier than 5 to 6 times that time. Or Just over three hours. that timing sort of fits in with Durnford having left the camp to go foraging. A rider was then sent of to collect Durnford, bring him back and for him to give orders to move. SD in the meantime went and had breakfast with Bromhead, borrowed some ammunition and inspected ongoing work he was responsible for. He then started back to iSandlwana. Although his memoirs are pretty detailed he makes no mention of passing Durnford on the track, or indeed Chard. From other statements including Chard there is no mention of seeing him either. Again Chard is pretty detailed about the whole morning, including meeting up with Durnford on his return from iSandlwana.To digress, Chard also left early morning to go iSandlwana looking for orders, he spent time at iSandlwana and witnessed the impi moving across the front of the plateau, as per Brickhill and Pope. Brickhill puts that around 8 oclock or so.Chard then leaves the camp at some point and meets Durnfords on route.For SD to be able to say that Durnford arrived at 8 therefore he would have had to have been in the camp or travelled with him. Either way the distances don't equate with the timings.Brickhill incidentally puts Durnfords arrival at 10.30.This is his original statement.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]bottom of page 1 and top of page 2[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thanks Frank. Didn't know the originals were at Brecon. Just in passing, while looking at the various accounts for timings I noticed that Lt Davies NNC says that on arriving in camp with AWD they dismounted and Durnford left them for a few moments "we supposed reporting himself to the General". Seems to indicate that in all the time it had taken (3 hours?) to return to his camp and then move up to Isandhlwana Durnford hadn't told his officers that Chelmsford had left with half the force and why they were moving up.

Interesting thought Steve. Im just busy looking at some of the less well know statements, uHlolwani is an interesting one, he seems to think that half the Edenvale men went up to the plateau by a different route but Im thinking he is getting mixed up with the rocket battery escort.

Given that Davies was out with Durnford when Chelmsford's order arrived, and he comments on that fact, it is all the more surprising he didn't know what was in it. To my mind, it also puts a bit more of a question mark against the idea that there was a second "missing" order that gave more detail.

Davies mentions orders from the general on two occasions. He also puts a fairly definative time line on the trip to iSandlwana. He says they left around 7:30 and took around 2 1/2 hours to get there, back to the 10 to 10:30 time again.

Looking again at Davies it is clear that George Shepstone at least knew what was in Chelmsford's order because he had opened it before sending it on to Durnford. By the time Durnford returned Shepstone had the camp packed up and ready to move. Yet Davies did not know. George is killed at Isandhlwana and later it is brother "Offy" that is accused of removing papers from Durnford's body. Conspiracy again!

Julian say's.. I recently came across an unpublished known survivor’s account of the battle (one who wouldn’t have had a watch)..

Frank say's.. LesYep, dead right mate, but hell its fun trying, just imagine if you had given up supporting MC and switched to MU? Nope, you keep on going. I must let slip that there have been a number of 'finds' lately that are all adding to the picture. Theres a lot of people scurrying around out there.

Hmmm, so a definitive timeline is the ultimate prize.. the timings and statements/interviews ofthe survivors are all over the place as we know, so i find no need to list or cherrypick the one'sthat seem to suit!. remember all the account's ( the white's ) were written by men ' fleeing ' thebattlefield in general disorder from an unfolding massacre. all with different recollection's andfragments and vignettes of the same event..

So as i said, i'm sitting comfortably and awaiting the forthcoming revelations with relish. xhosa

FrankSeems to me that had they been told Chelmsford had moved out with half the force to engage the enemy they would assume they were going up to join him in that endeavour. That's what Durnford thought he was doing having read the order. Surely better to inform his force than keep it to himself and leave them wondering. I think one of his weaknesses was keeping things too close to his chest and then appearing to act precipitately. Just his style I suppose.

LesI don't think an ultimately definitive timeline is possible because of the factors you state, but new information might just give us a revised timeline that makes some of the current thinking hang together better.

You are spot on with what you posted to Frank above, Chelmsford should have given better information rather than leave them guessing, the whole debacle of iSandlwana was down to him, and the scapegoat was Col Durnford.

Les one of my ways of relaxing from my very heavy schedule of doing very little is a thing called 'Wasgij" its a type of jigsaw but donr backwards. iSandlwana is similar, you don't know the picture, you don't know the shape, in fact you know very little but with a lot of cursing swearing and work it eventually gets done. Ive only been doing iSandlwana for 45 years, so maybe another twenty to go? Yeh Man C to Man U was a bit far fetched

Very difficult to attempt to come up with a timeline , which is why I'm happy to sit back and watch , much like Les , I've read Keith Smith's timeline , which has all the times from memory , as he said , highly improbable to gather an even close to definitive timeline . Or words to that effect ! . Good Luck guys , enjoy the riddle . 90th

Martin Google it. Really there is a picture but that isn't the picture of the jigsaw, it could either be the view the people in the jigsaw are looking at or could be a similar view projected into the future. Seriously I get them when they are available from the manufacturer in Auckland New Zealand. The thinking mans way of wasting time.

LOL, Gary mate, this name is just a novelty for the gullible tourists, the station has, or at least had, the novelty nameboard on the platform and lots of folk have taken pictires of it. When I worked on the railway it was always known as Llanfair PG, the tickets had this name also, however, there were some novelty tickets brought out for the gullible tourists to buy, they must have been about 6" long, with the novelty name printed on them, surprising how many silly sods bought them, ummm! maybe thats what the bit that says 'siliogogogoch' means.

"11 January, 1879 – Invasion began in the early morning. Five-pronged advance by the British into Zululand, met with no opposition"....say's Frank.. surely the column's were reduced to three!, thefirst split of Chelmsford's command.

Lieutenant Melville ordered to save the British Colours by Colonel Henry Pulleine, leaves the overrun camp with Lieutenant Coghill.

"Defence of camp appears all but over, and word of this is sent to Lord Chlemsford.2:10-Lieutenants Melville and Coghill cross the river below Mpethe. Lieutenant Melville dragged down the river after losing the colours but managed to hold onto a rock.

Lieutenants Melville and Coghill were eventually caught by the Zulus and killed, the Colours were found lying in the river."....again Frank that is inaccurate, it is only assumed that Pulleine orderedthe colour's be carried away.. no corroboration... and we know for a fact that Coghill did not leaveat the same time as Melvill..just small point's that leap off the page. i wont pick apart your timeline, i will leave that to other's, but basic accuracy is a must!. cheers.

"When I was designing the app, I put together this basic timeline. Moving info across to the new laptop ( thank you father christmas) I re discovered it. Im not to sure of the relevance anymore but possibly it may assist some of the newer members to orientate them selves. I might add that my own views have been more focused over the last couple of years..

Nope still 5 columns. 2 was never incorporated into 3 and 5 was never incorporated into 4.Melvill and Coghills first point of 'known' point of contact was the Manzimyama stream (Brickhill). Not to far from the camp. No question they died together and no question the colours were carried down the river. The question of Melvill being told to leave the camp.............. I believe it, so did Glyn. Ah yes speculation, sorry pre empting your typing, show me any book on the AZ that doesn't have an element of speculation, and as the great Mark Twain said "Aint nuttin wrong with That".

I have a bee in my bonnet about the time window for deploying the 24th from the camp to their firing positions. We have George Shepstone arriving back in camp giving the alarm at 12.10. Durnford is long gone so the deployments are down to Pulleine. Pulleine sends Mostyn's company up on the ridge to re-inforce Cavaye. He has 3 companies of 1/24th and 1 of 2/24th left in camp. A and H companies 1/24th are sent out and take positions east of the guns, Pope's single 2/24th company takes up position even further on the right in line with the two 1/24th companies (all in extended order). We then have the Zulu chest being engaged by them at 12.30. Pope is what, a mile from the camp? The two 1/24th companies not much less. Could they really have deployed and be ready to engage in that timescale? It's quite a long way.

show me any book on the AZ that doesn't have an element of speculation, and as the great Mark Twain said "Aint nuttin wrong with That".....

Not sorry to say Frank.. but there is everything wrong with that!!!. m and c were sightedat different times on the trail, at least half a mile apart. speculation is not and never will behistorical fact!. i dont need to show you anything.. we are not children. your comment about thefive columns are of course semantic.. Wood, Pearson, Chelmsford.. Rowland's was static . samewith bengough, guarding the border's. Durnford's became an in dependent command. so Three not that it matter's to you!.. i am waiting for all the feedback from Neil's excellent book..then i will be taking you to task over appendix four. cheers

SteveHighly possible, as I highlighted this was the original workup from the app. Things were changed significantly, but it has done what it was supposed to, created dialogue. Popes position is the really difficult one to get right in the early stage. Snook reckons he was an extention of the line from east to west anchored on the conical kopie. LesThey were also sighted together, and just because they were sighted at half a mile apart is neither here not there.Semantics? Hardly, just facts, prove me wrong if you like, always happy for that. And why wouldn't it matter to me? Was that a touch of pique? And when does a column become an independent command, really looking forward to that one.Take me to task if you will, broad shoulders and a stiff upper lip await.The facts of the battle can be printed on a single sheet of A4, what the last 130 odd years of books have existed on is speculation, concept and shear dreaming. That's what its all about, the what ifs, the personal opinions, the ideas and yes the dreams. Add a touch of Victorian melodrama and its why this forum exists.

Evening LesNot to sure of the reasoning for posting that but it does re inforce my theory from Appendix 4 in that the force that attacked RD was the force that the returning column passed.Sorry if Im missing something!Cheers

A useful way of approaching Frank's hypothesis set out in Appendix 4 of Neil's new book on Rorke's Drift is to read it alongside John Labands study "O! Let's go and have a fight at Jim's!" in Kingdom and Colony at War.

I think we would all agree that Laband is authoritative when it comes to the Zulu perspective of the AZW. Laband's account of the two Zulu forces crossing the Buffalo in two different places, their primary aim of harassing the border farms and the fact that they had begun to leave RD while Chelmsford was still at Isandhlwana fit Frank's hypothesis very well. It certainly strengthens the idea that a second Zulu force showed itself at RD some hours after those involved in the attack had begun to leave. It also fits with them meeting Chelmsford's force west of the Manzimyama.

Many of us will now have read Neil's book and it would be interesting to hear contrary arguments.

If, by diversionary tactics, you mean the exchange about Melville and Coghill then no, I have no interest in that old chestnut. Whereas the hypothesis at appendix 4 is new and in my view worth discussing further (which is why Neil included it no doubt - he says himself that it holds up to scrutiny and he includes it for consideration). I too hope there is debate about the body of Neil's book and await with interest the considered views of those who have read it.